This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[ipv6-wg] Last Call (20101117): Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Last Call (20101117): Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Last Call (20101117): Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Isacco Fontana
isacco.fontana at trentinonetwork.it
Tue Nov 9 05:23:27 CET 2010
Yes Marc, but if they are optional... some will be mandatory. What will be mandatory for Ipv4 Mpls backbone ? ;) If we use as mandatory dual stack the ipv6 vpn mpls not work. We must use 6VPE that is over ipv4. Today as you know LDPv6 is under developement by ietf and vendors will wait 1-2 years to deploy the protocol inside os. I think today and when ipv4 addresses will finsh the ipv4 mpls backbones remains the same ($$) and the 6PE and 6VPE will be used. Isacco Marc Blanchet ha scritto: > Le 10-11-09 02:44, Isacco Fontana a écrit : >> Hi Marc, >> your issue is true about IPv4 only backbone....but today for ISP with >> MPLS backbone the 6PE and 6VPE are used to deploy ipv6 on MPLS backbone. > > I know (and have been helping providers to deploy 6PE and 6VPE). My > point is to make it "mandatory" is the issue. > > Marc. > >> >> Isacco >> >> >> Marc Blanchet ha scritto: >>> Le 10-11-08 18:15, Jan Zorz @ go6.si a écrit : >>>> On 8.11.10 10:00, Isacco Fontana wrote: >>>>> 6VPE (RFC 4659) >>>>> 6PE (RFC 4798) >>>>> >>>>> These RFC are related to MPLS environment so I think 6PE and 6VPE >>>>> should be >>>>> mandatory for ISP that are using MPLS and offer ipv6 for direct >>>>> internet >>>>> connections and 6VPE for ipv6 over vpn mpls services. >>>> >>>> So, the correct wording inside mandatory section would be: >>>> >>>> - if IPv6 over MPLS and IPv6 over VPN MPLS features are requested, 6PE >>>> or 6VPE must be supported [RFC4798, RFC4659] The contracting authority >>>> shall specify the required protocol. >>> >>> does not make sense to me. >>> >>> 6PE and 6VPE are two ways to run IPv6 over MPLS network, but are not >>> the only ones. Therefore, it can not be mandatory. >>> >>> Marc. >>> >>>> >>>> Is this acceptable? >>>> >>>> Thnx, Jan Zorz >>> >>> >> >> > > -- Ing. Isacco Fontana Trentino Network s.r.l. A socio Unico Direzione Servizi Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO Tel (+39) 0461.020200 Fax (+39) 0461.020201 http://as12835.peeringdb.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cap. Soc. sottoscritto € 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede at trentinonetwork.it Società soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Last Call (20101117): Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Last Call (20101117): Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]